Grenfell Tower enquiry

What I find completely unacceptable is that the companies responsible for providing and/or fitting, inadequate fire doors, cheap windows that allowed the fire escape outside to ignite the flammable cladding, are not forced into the witness box.

Why are they being allowed to remain silent?

Grandad to be accurate, the police are investigating. They will give any evidence collected to the CPS who will decide whether to prosecute or not based on that eveidence.

Some people on here have, over years, made virtual friendships, hence the smiley faces between friends wishing each other well. No one has put up a smiley, jokey face with regard to this tragedy! As if?!!!

What I felt was very important to this tragedy was made today outside of the enquiry. In that, the Metropolitan police made a statement advising that they are considering any prosecution they may make in this matter against any member of the fire service will be brought forward under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974.

The Health and Safety at Work Act is without doubt the strongest legislation available for the protection or prosecution of those involved in industrial safety. Without doubt the Metropolitan police will now consult with the Health and Safety Executive in regards to the liability or not of the fire service in this matter.

Those who have had dealings with the H&SE always gain great confidence in the way that they investigate and act. Many may well remember the Staffordshire roller coaster accident in which the Health and Safety Executive investigation found fault with very senior management and not the young employees operating the ride who initially at first seemed very liable.

Therefore, I feel that both the fire service and the victims and relatives of those involved in this tragedy should now see justice in at least the fire services part in this terrible event.

www.grenfelltowerinquiry.org.uk/sites/default/files/inline-files/ProgrammeFont12.pptx_0.pdf

This is a useful summary. It’s from the Grenfell Enquiry website which is well worth going on if anyone really wants to understand how the enquiry is being conducted

GrannyGravy don't worry! I'm new here too! I posted a comment about the Royal Family...jeez, that went well!! But having the skin of a rhino, I'm able to shrug it off.
I've been following the inquiry, I'm hoping for a positive outcome for all survivors and victims.

ab this week has been what is known as opening statements - these are given by the barristers. Next week witnesses will start being called to give evidence - this will include a huge range of people at all levels. They will give evidence

Thank you Maw

Employment Tribunals?
Still by LWB though. Please?

No reason why they shouldn’t be, but I would like to hear directors of the companies, chief of the fire station involved, the council chairperson etc .

I have sat through an enquiry where 128 people died, the head of the NCB was called .

Like LBW I have no idea what ET means ,

No ab not union reps - we’re in barrister territory here ( and many are QCs)

ab of course all the various parties involved are legally represented - is there one good reason why they should not be? This morning is was 3 organisations related to the fire service. You can bet your bottom dollar that all the big commercial companies will be legally represented for obvious reasons. If we want to get anywhere near the truth proper legal representation across the board is the only way - it’s called due process and justice. Look what happens in ETs when the employers are represented but the employee isn’t ( and there’s no legal aid)

Oh it was a union rep for the firemen

No smiley faces when referring to the victims of Grenfel Tower , one or two when referring to unrelated topics

Grandad it’s a point well made about populism as it’s across much of the poltitical spectrum that deregulation, privatisation and comments about the ‘nanny state’ have been supported. Jaycee I guess the enquiry may well result in some acceptance of the need for more and I would say truly independent inspection regimes. This will require a shift to accepting that this will cost money.

Wow - this thread is getting really nasty. I cannot believe the number of people piling in on all sides and especially those posting jokey faces on a thread regarding multiple deaths. Have you no sense of decency?

I can remember when I first joined social services working with the elderly, that one of my assignments was working for a few months as a carer in a retirement home. One of the things that stood out for me were the mandatory inspections that took place on a regular basis by the fire brigade, and health and safety, hygiene and safe manual handling; all at regular intervals. We also in those far off days had at times 'spot inspections'. To cut back safety in any building particularly high rise and over the years, introduce self regulation by landlords in order to save money, is both ludicrous, criminal and frankly mind boggling!

Absolutely Grandad

David Cameron’s “Red Tape Challenge” (from Gov U.K.)

That’s why, since coming to office, the Government has pursued an ambitious deregulation agenda. This has included:

introducing a new one-in, one-out rule, meaning Ministers have to identify an existing piece of regulation to be scrapped for every new one proposed;
a strengthened role for the Regulatory Policy Committee to review the costs and benefits of new regulation proposals,
and a three-year moratorium on domestic regulation for very small firms and start-ups.
These things are about stopping unnecessary new regulations. But we also need to tackle the stock of existing regulation. Today, there are over 21,000 statutory rules and regulations in force, and I want us to bring that number - and the burden it represents - down. Indeed, I want us to be the first government in modern history to leave office having reduced the overall burden of regulation, rather than increasing it.

listening to the firemen’s lawyer this morning suppose we can expect everyone involved in anyway to put forward a lawyer

nigglynellie, as the mostlyharmless post and others have demonstrated, over a great number of years the regulatory framework in regard to the independent inspection and assessment of products and services has been deregulated. We now have a system where landlords and others are allowed to do fire risk assessment etc on their own buildings without any independent verification that those assessments are correct or safe.

In the production of building materials we have again a situation where manufacturers produce safety assessments in regard to their products again without any independent verification that their assessments are correct.

Obviously with Grenfell tower the above situations combined to create the circumstances that made those people's homes deathtraps.

Over the years we have seen in the populist press campaigns against the overburdening of businesses with "elf & safety" and equal campaigns against "red tape".

Over those same years we have also seen governments of both colours succumb to the above pressures generated by the populist press in regard to the above. The foregoing has brought about deregulation, especially in the building industry

What we all witnessed at Grenfell where the results of succumbing to those pressures and the in introduction of deregulation.

maryeliza54 I remember people applauding 'the bonfire of the quangos' and pointing out that this meant things like environmental health officers and various kinds of inspectorates which are for the common good and which have only arisen because of accidents, illnesses etc.

Do you need a ? MB? I thought there was s general consensus for moving on with this thread

I totally agree that a topic of this gravity is not the place for jokes or levity or “scoring points” off others, which is why I was shocked to read the following post and cannot imagine what possible relevance it has.
Actually nn I don’t consider myself academically and intellectually superior to the rest of you but I know I am to some of you

I think even with a better inspection regime by the FS, it could not reveal if the wrong kind of materials were used. There may be something about the interface between any sort of refurbishment work and it being signed off by the FS at the time it’s carried out. As it was responsibilities such as they were were transferred to a range of bodies, some of whom had a vested interest in keeping costs down and also the more bodies involved, the greater the possibility of issues falling into cracks and people thinking someone else should have done it but not checking they had. The Enquiry has adjourned now until the 18 June.

I would have thought that it might well have done mh, as the Inspectors would have been able to note, and hopefully take action against, any sub standard or downright dangerous remedial work, any vandalism, lack of fire doors and equally important meeting with residents and taking any concerns seriously including the cladding! Putting up cladding made of a flammable material is awful beyond words, who on earth sanctioned that, and why didn't someone else stop them or at least shout about.
We all care on here about such a terrible tragedy, but we don't all have to shout unsubstantiated accusations at people who voice different opinions in a calm thoughtful way. I don't want to hear that idiot meaningless phrase trotted out either!!